Contacting Sponsors Works: Third Sponsor Pulls Out of Commission on Presidential Debates!

This is getting serious.
It was only a week ago that the Commission on Presidential Debates had ten sponsors for the 2012 debates.

Today, they’re down to seven. Phillips Electronics has, as of this morning, pulled their sponsorship.

Under the Commission’s guidelines for debate inclusion, other than the non-objective polling criterion, two additional candidates would qualify: Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Jill Stein (Green), the only candidates not invited to the CPD debates who are on enough ballots to win the Presidency and are Constitutionally qualified for the office.

Some unverified contact information for the remaining debate sponsors is in the IPR comment thread.

Jesse Ventura also has a video out calling on supporters to call the Commission on Presidential Debates. A similar video, perhaps also aimed at the sponsors, may be a good idea for Green-friendly celebrities such as Ralph Nader and Amy Goodman.

Gary Johnson is suing the CPD, Democrats and Republicans on the grounds that the CPD violates antitrust laws. Are any Green attorneys interested in participating in such lawsuits or filing their own?

Art DiBianca has a complaint with the IRS challenging the CPD’s 501c3 tax exempt status, something else that Greens may want to file.

And, some IPR commenters have suggested that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson may want to reprise the protest that David Cobb and Michael Badnarik staged against the CPD in 2004 – this time with youtube!

6 Comments

I ran across this site because of my searches of the CPD. I thought I’d share with you what I, a Gary Johnson supporter, just sent off in an email to Anheuser-Busch. My letter is obviously based upon Gary Johnson getting left out, however if we attack from different sides, the end goal is to get Jill Stein invited as well. Let’s keep hammering this and put an end to the polarizing two-party politics that “The Elite” are trying to save.

Until Anheuser Busch withdraws support of the Commission of Presidential Debates for excluding third parties, such as Gary Johnson, I will only be drinking Miller Lite. I was shocked to find out how good Miller Lite actually is, and now when my friends ask why I don’t drink Bud any longer, I tell them that AB doesn’t support freedom of speech, and I cannot support a company who believes in limiting our decisions.

In my mind, AB has two very legitimate options. The first option is withdrawing support completely from the CPD, and the second option is sending an open letter to the CPD demanding inclusion of all political perspective.

Here’s to you, corporate decision making powers! Gain my business and respect back, or ignore me, and I’ll continue for the next four years to associate your business with why our economy is broken.

Anheuser Busch, I like your beer, however, I like freedom of choice better. Thank you for your time, and I only ask that you stand behind our right to hear everyone equally.

However, I am also a student at the University of Denver, the university hosting the first debate. The administration is very secretive of the figures, but it has dropped upwards of 3 million dollars on this debate, with no additional revenue coming in. Without sponsors, us students will see massive tuition increases.

Thomas, I’m sorry that you’re worrying about your tuition. However, perhaps you could start questioning why you feel apathetic towards your university’s dubious actions in hosting these bias debates and even why there should be any justification for spending $3 million of money on such a debate if there’s such a risk to students. Why should Univeristy of Denver students be expected to eat the cost of a risky, illegitimate and nontransparent decision made by the faculty? Why should students would be saddled with a tuition hike should the sponsorship of a bias debate fall through?

I might suggest that the biggest effect of change can be made through the protest of students in maintaining the reputability of your University. It is not our fault for protesting and convincing sponsors to withdraw their funding for an unfair Presidential debate. It should be the responsibility of the University to answer for why they’d invest so much in a debate if they couldn’t afford to lose it? What are they benefiting from?

@Thomas, sorry but that will not stop the push. If you are concerned about the school loosing money then you should bring attention to this issue and make a push to include other options from within the school. An educational institution should be pushing for open debate. There are two other candidates that qualify in enough states to win, and they should be heard. The sponsors should not want to be seen as supporting closed debates. If Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were included, the sponsors might return because true nonpartisanship would be undeniable.